Summary: The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with hundreds of millions of dollars in NIH research funding cuts tied to its diversity, equity and inclusion priorities, lifting a lower-court injunction but blocking the administration’s broader guidance on future funding. The 5-4 decision preserves the cuts for now while leaving the litigation to unfold.
Washington — The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to slash nearly $783 million in National Institutes of Health research grants aligned with its DEI priorities, lifting a lower-court injunction that had temporarily blocked the cuts. At the same time, the justices kept in place a block on the administration’s guidance on how future funding decisions should be made.
– What the court decided: The majority, in a 5-4 split, ruled that the government could continue implementing the cuts but did not permit the contested guidance on future funding to take effect. Some justices indicated they would have blocked the cuts as well, but the ruling nonetheless allows the administration to press ahead with the reductions while the broader legal battle continues.
– The parties involved: The lawsuit, brought by 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argues that the reductions would inflict significant harm on public health and medical progress. The Department of Justice contends that funding decisions should not be micromanaged by courts and that DEI policies can conceal discriminatory motives.
– How much is at stake: The dispute addresses only part of the NIH’s planned or already executed cuts from a broader portfolio estimated at about $12 billion in affected research projects. The government has argued in emergency appeals that other related cases should be handled in federal claims court rather than through the courts’ emergency-review process.
– Background from the lower courts: Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts ruled the cancellations arbitrary and discriminatory, prompting an appeals court to keep that ruling in place as the case moved forward.
– Dissent and broader debate: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a lengthy dissent criticizing the outcome and her colleagues’ use of the emergency appeals process to sustain the government’s midstream cancellations. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a separate opinion urging a stricter adherence to earlier Supreme Court guidance on similar issues.
– The administration’s position: Solicitor General D. John Sau Erick argued that the judiciary should not second-guess funding decisions and that teacher-training or DEI-related policies are distinct from biomedical research contracts, suggesting that some claims belong in federal court rather than the claims process.
– On the record about impact: Plaintiffs warned that interrupting research midstream could compromise data, derail scientists’ careers and slow potential scientific breakthroughs, while the administration frames the action as a move to ensure funding aligns with its policy priorities.
What this means now and what to watch
– The decision leaves intact the possibility that hundreds of millions in NIH funds will be redirected or rescinded in line with the administration’s priorities, while the dispute over the administration’s DEI-related guidance remains unsettled.
– The case highlights a broader tension between DEI initiatives in federal science funding and the prerogatives claimed by the executive branch in setting research priorities.
– Legal experts say the outcome could influence how emergency-related funding fights are litigated going forward, including whether certain kinds of research grants can be challenged in court or belong in federal claims proceedings.
A hopeful note: The ruling keeps the science community moving forward by preserving the status of ongoing and already approved grants, while the ongoing litigation may still shape the framework for how emergency budget decisions intersect with research policy. As the case continues, scientists and institutions may adapt by pursuing projects that align with current priorities without compromising the integrity and continuity of critical biomedical research.
Bottom line: The court’s split decision reflects a complicated balance between executive budgeting powers and judicial oversight in an area as consequential as public health research. The fight is far from over, and developments in the coming months will determine how much scope remains for DEI-aligned funding moves to influence NIH science in the years ahead.